2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI really like Gary Johnson's positions on social issues...
The Libertarians are nominating Gary Johnson and Drug War foe Jim Gray, a former federal prosecutor, this weekend in Las Vegas. I voted for Obama in 2008, but I really wish he would adopt some of Johnson's social positions, such as:
"...Johnson is promising to make marijuana legalization a front burner issue in 2012, and by teaming up with Gray, he sends a strong message that he is fully committed to doing just that. The former governor, an accomplished triathlete who climbed Mount Everest in 2004, is also strongly pro-choice, supports marriage equality for gays and lesbians and pledges to make ending the war in Afghanistan a top issue as well."
Obama is obviously pro-choice, but what about full marriage equality and legalizing cannabis (or at least rescheduling it as Schedule II)?
At any rate, here's more on Johnson and the convention this weekend for those who are interested. Maybe Obama needs to be reminded that a lot of the votes he got in 2008 were from people who are socially liberal.
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/12073671-libertarian-party-comes-of-age-with-johnsongray-ticket-in-2012
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)on the same policies as other republicans I am sure.
victoryparty
(441 posts)Yes, Johnson was a GOP governor, no doubt about it. But I don't think most Republican politicians support gay rights, legalizing cannabis or ending military involvement in Afghanistan.
I just wish Obama would consider a few of Johnson's positions on social issues.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)reality that 1% control 40% of the wealth in the U.S. and 10% control 80% of the wealth in the country.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)the House and did NOTHING to help create jobs once they had, it would've given people a clue that they know how to use the bait and switch tactic with impunity because they never get punished for it by the electorate. But it appears some people never learn.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)that you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time.
Sad but true.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)Before the Civil Rights Act, we had the New Deal coalition voting to keep the wealth far more evenly distributed than it is today. It was absolutely wonderful, as long as you were white.
IMO, some of my fellow 99%ers can go fuck themselves.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)mistake, but they are not as important as the obscene concentration of wealth in this country, a concentration that is color- and gender-blind.
Using your example of 'race,' the southern white elite historically used and uses racism as a tactic to keep black and white workers antagonistic towards one another on the basis of a non-essential characteristic (skin pigmentation), as a means of distracting them from the plain fact that their essential characteristic, i.e., the fact that they were working class, united them.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)Furthermore they're inextricably linked to issues of wealth. When abortion is illegal, rich people go get it done elsewhere. When rich people get caught with drugs, their lawyer gets them off with a slap on the wrist. It really doesn't help if you're black, either. When poor people get caught with drugs they go to prison for years and then are unemployable for the rest of their lives. Gay kids with rich parents can go to a private school where they actually deal with bullies. Gay kids with poor parents are fucked if the school system condones bullying (and it does, way too often).
So yes, fuck my fellow 99%ers who are anti-choice, homophobic, drug warriors. And I resent the notion that I'm being distracted from the real issues, because I think social issues are just as important as economic ones. Both have to do with issues of fairness and justice. If we only focus on issues of economic justice, then the world becomes a place where there's economic justice for everyone who's straight, white, male, and Christian. That's how things were in the 1950's. You can't achieve true economic justice for everyone, without focusing on social issues as well.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)in my opinion).
Merriam-Webster defines 'inextricably' as 'in an inextricable manner' and defines 'inextricable' as 'Impossible to disentangle or separate.' But it is all too possible to disentangle social issues (what Marx might call the superstructure) from economic issues (what Marx might call the substructure). The two are in a dialectical relationship, that's for sure, but a dialectical relationship is not an inextricable relationship.
What I'm arguing is that the ruling class (the 1%) uses social issues (like race or gender) to divide the working class (the 99%) against itself and keep it from focusing on its real enemy, the ruling class.
Can we at least agree that there is a class war happening right now and that the ruling class is the real enemy? If we cannot agree on that, then we're each coming at this from a different set of premises and will have to agree to disagree.
WI_DEM
(33,497 posts)He has said that he would cut the federal budget by 43%, Start out with the big four - Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and defense, Johnson said in New Hampshire in early 2011.
Governor Johnson has an excellent record of holding down the exploding growth of entitlement programs that now cripple state budgets. As Governor, Johnson presided over the beginning of managed care for Medicaid recipients in New Mexico and pushed for speedy implementation. The managed care program (known as Salud!) replaces fee-for service and covers approximately two-thirds of available services under Medicaid. Salud! has generally been described as operating with significant savings to both the State and Federal governments, when compared to fee-for-service.
In 2000, Governor Johnson proposed to re-impose a gross income cap on welfare recipients. In 2002, Johnson proposed limiting eligibility for Medicaid from 235% of the federal poverty level down to 200% for families with children 5 and under and 100% for ages 6-18. He also let his states S-CHIP program expire after vetoing an attempt to make it permanent.
Governor Johnsons website lists some major entitlement reform proposals, including:
Block grant Medicare and Medicaid funds to the states, allowing them to innovate, find efficiencies and provide better service at lower cost.
Repeal ObamaCare, as well as the failed Medicare prescription drug benefit.
Fix Social Security by changing the escalator from being based on wage growth to inflation.
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=936
get the red out
(13,466 posts)Libertarians don't.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Just a trojan horse for Rand Paul's 2016 Presidential bid.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)exists only to try and leech away some college students, who are a traditionally strong Dem bloc
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)He's a Republican running in 2012.
You'd have to be really high to vote for him.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)talk about not knowing your base(!)...
So now 95 percent of all libertarians just shifted their vote to Ron Paul or one of the other anti-choice fringe candidates
Iggo
(47,558 posts)'Cause we already got a guy running for president.
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)No thanks, but I'll pass.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)fuck Gary Johnson?
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)Fuck Gary Johnson.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)You like some of his social issues that you happen to agree with, but what about his wanting to gut Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and just about all of the social safety net?
Libertarians can go piss up a rope.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Paulie
(8,462 posts)Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)the Lunatarian candidate for President is to the left of a Democratic incumbent?
We really need to organize and get a better choice in 2016 or, win or lose this year, Obama's coalition is dead.